Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: LindyBill who wrote (214076)	8/2/2007 9:56:50 AM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (2) of 793931

Why do you see this as a particularly egregious offense on the part of the hospital rather than a positive move toward better health? There is no question that breastfeeding is better for the mother and baby, and formula a second rate alternative. We've been reading a lot about the need to emphasize health and preventive medicine in our system. Since breastfeeding provides superior benefits in so many areas- from the transfer or immunities from mom to baby to the emotional bonding of infant and mom-- it's counterproductive to send the mixed message of "breastfeeding is best but here's some free, easy formula". It's too easy to start baby on it and once that happens, many just take the lazy way out. PRoviding free marketing and advertising isn't the job of the hospital, especially if it's counterproductive to the best health choice for the child. And the state isn't acting "against" the companies, but "for" the infant, which is their business. They gain nothing economically by doing this; they are acting in the best interests of the baby. I guess I don't see this as Nanny state as much as sending a clear message about what is best for baby- and that should be the main goal of the medical profession.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next